Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712−1778)

One of the most significant nationalist thinkers is Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) and his conception of the “general will.”

It is entirely credible to argue that Rousseau’s work provided a guiding framework for the revolutionaries in France after the collapse of the ancien regime. During the very birth of nationalism as a political force, those who stormed the barricades encapsulated Rousseau’s rallying call to create a social contract formed by liberty leading the people.

The obvious starting-point when considering Rousseau’s work is his perspective upon the state of nature. Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau viewed the state of nature as an idyllic scenario that allowed for a satisfying and fulfilling life. For Rousseau, the noble savage had reached the highest stage of human development. They had progressed from the brutish character of animals whilst avoiding the decadence of modernisation which was plagued by vice and sin. The conservative theorist Thomas Hobbes was therefore wrong to assert that the state of nature must be a hostile environment. For Rousseau, the noble savage held uncorrupted morals because they lead a good life.

From this initial starting point, Rousseau develops the premise that human beings move from a state of nature towards a social contract. Before the contract exists, freedom pertains solely to the pursuit of individual interest. After the contract is formed, freedom consists of obeying the general will. According to Rousseau, the general will “tends always to the preservation and welfare of the whole.” The role of the state and its leader is to implement the general will rather than what individuals deem to be in their own self-interest. He also made a distinction between our higher selves and our lower selves, with obedience to the general will a reflection of our higher calling.

At the centre of Rousseau’s contractual thesis is the intriguing claim that “obedience to the general will enhances liberty.” Rousseau added that those who refuse to obey the general will must be forced to do so. In his own blunt words, they should be “forced to be free.” Rousseau also goes on to say that the conception of popular sovereignty – where ultimate authority is vested in the people themselves and expressed via the general will – should be articulated and implemented via what he called the legislator governing on behalf of the nation. Taken together, these are arguments with overt totalitarian implications.

Whilst it would be tempting to class Rousseau as a fascist, this would be an oversimplification. For instance, there is absolutely nothing within Rousseau’s work that reflects the racialism of a genuine fascist regime. Moreover, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that individuals should obey the state because the social contract benefitted them. This even applies to the very strongest within society because “the strongest is never strong enough to be always the master unless he transforms strength into right and obedience into duty.” In doing so, Rousseau rejects the fascist wish to exclude those classed as undesirables. His emphasis upon the need for citizens to obey and uphold the general will is consistent with the need for active participation from the public.

Although he is rightly labelled as a civic nationalist, Rousseau offers a thought-provoking critique to consider when he argued that “the first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, be thought to himself of saying ‘This is Mine’, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.” Rousseau goes onto to consider just how many horrors and misfortunes might have been avoided by pulling up the stakes, filling up the ditch and warning people to ignore this imposter. Crucially, we are undone if we forget that the fruits of the Earth belong to us all and the Earth belongs to nobody.